war, massacre, or terrorism?

MysteryQuest 7 n Teachers’ Notes 1 © 2007 Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History

MysteryQuest 7 Teachers’ Notes

War, Massacre, or Terrorism?This MysteryQuest examines the documents relating to a clash between a white road-building crew and Aboriginal peoples in 1864 in British Columbia. Students will develop an understanding of the value judgments contained in reporting about newsworthy events, and learn to write a fair-minded account.

A critical thinking challenge to accompany

Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History

We Do Not Know His Name: Klatsassin and the Chilcotin War

http://www.mysteryquests.ca/quests/07/indexen.html

Author: Dick HollandEditors: Ruth Sandwell, Dick Holland

Series Editor: Roland Case

based on an approach developed by The Critical Thinking Consortium (TC2)www.tc2.ca

Ages

16-18

Courses

Canadian history, law, First Nations studies

Key Topics

• media bias• fair-minded reporting• First Nation/European conflict on the West Coast• Chilcotin War


Critical Challenge

Write a persuasive editorial for a local newspaper that asserts that the events of 1864 in the Chilcotin area were one of a war or a massacre.

Broad Understanding

• Students will learn about the effect of value laden language in the reporting of events, and will also learn how to write a fair-minded account.

• Students will learn about various perspectives on the nature of the conflict between Europeans and Aboriginal peoples in 1864 in British Columbia.

Requisite Tools

Background knowledge

• knowledge of the settlement of 19th century British Columbia• basic knowledge about Native /non-Native relations in 19th century British Columbia

Criteria for judgment

• criteria for writing a fair-minded account (e.g., clearly stated position; neutral (not “loaded”) language; supporting evidence; reference to definitions of war, massacre, and terrorism)

Critical thinking vocabulary

• fair-minded• loaded language

Thinking strategies

• data chart

Habits of mind

• fair-minded

Independent Study

This lesson can be used as a self-directed activity by having students individually or in pairs work their way through the guided instructions and support material found at http://www.mysteryquests.ca/quests/07/indexen.html.

Whole Class Activities

On the following pages are suggested modifications of the self-guided procedures found on the MysteryQuest website for use with a class of students. For convenience, each support material and set of directions found on the website is reproduced next to the relevant suggestions for whole class instruction.


THE TASK

This MysteryQuest invites you to assess the underlying nature of a violent confl ict between whites and First Nations peoples in 1864. Was the killing of the road crew an act of terrorism by the Tsilhqot’in to discourage further trade and traffi c in the area? Or were they defending their territory against an invading population? Perhaps they were avenging the deaths of their people who were killed by the European introduction of smallpox years earlier?

You will begin by considering the differences between the terms “war,” “massacre,” and “terrorism.” You will read about the background to this incident and then examine historical documents looking for statements that suggest how this event should be described. Finally, you will decide on the most appropriate term and explain your choice in a one-page essay.

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 1864 a series of killings sent a chill across Canada. The blood of 14 men, spilled into the Homathco River before dawn on the morning of April 29th, 1864, was only the beginning of this confl ict. By the end of May, 19 road-builders, packers, and a farmer were dead. Within six weeks an army of over 100 men had arrived in the area to catch the killers.

The killings took place in a remote triangle in central British Columbia that, at the time, was inaccessible by road or even horse trail. The dead men had all been part of the teams trying to build a road from the Pacifi c coast to the recently discovered goldfi elds of the Cariboo.

This area was traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in people who had lived on the high Chilcotin Plateau for centuries, perhaps for thousands of years. The survivors of the attacks identifi ed the principal leader of the more than 20 people involved in the killings as a Tsilhqot’in chief, who was called “Klatsassin” by his people.

Historians have variously called this incident a war, a massacre, or an act of terrorism. But which is it? Soldiers who kill many others during the course of war are not likely to be punished for these killings; in fact they may be honoured for these actions. Committing the same killings outside the context of war would likely result in serious consequences. But here again it may depend whether the killers were acting on behalf of their people to bring about a desired political goal, or simply acting for personal gain or revenge. In short, there is much at stake in deciding upon the kind of incident. You will be invited to examine selected historical documents from the time and draw your own conclusions about which term — war, massacre, or terrorism — most fairly describes this event.

Suggested Activities

Introduce Klatsassin and the Chilcotin War

➤ Using Introduction as a guide, explain to students the challenge that is the focus of their investiga-tion.

➤ Using The Task as a guide, outline the activities that students will undertake.

Refl ect on war, massacre, and terrorism

➤ Brainstorm with students how they would defi ne the terms war, massacre, and terrorism. After several suggestions have been given, provide stu-dents with the defi nitions found in Step 1: Refl ect on war, massacre, and terrorism to verify their understanding of the terms. Draw their attention to the subtle difference between the terms.

STEP 1: REFLECT ON WAR, MASSACRE, AND TERRORISM

Before deciding what term best describes this incident, we must be clear about the difference between the acts of war, massacre, and terrorism. Consider the following defi nitions:• War: a confl ict between the armed forces of two or more states or coalitions;

a confl ict conducted to achieve certain political goals.• Massacre: a slaughter; the savage and excessive killing of many people,

especially of non-combatant civilians; to murder cruelly or violently.• Terrorism: an attempt to further a group’s interests by intimidating others; a

policy intended to spread a feeling of terror or alarm.

The differences between these terms are subtle. For example, an act of terrorism might include the cruel killing of innocent villagers during a war. It might best be described as an act of terrorism if its primary function was neither a military objective nor a simple act of revenge, but to spread fear among the population.

Consult the chart Comparing War, Massacre, and Terrorism for further elaboration of these terms. You may want to search the internet to locate other defi nitions to help you distinguish between these three terms. Add any points you fi nd that have not already been listed on this chart.


➤ Duplicate and distribute copies of Comparing War, Massacre, and Terrorism to students, individually or in pairs. Invite students to add any other points raised in their discussion.

Learn about the confl ict

➤ Following Step 2: Learn about the confl ict as a guide, direct students to read the Timeline docu-ment found in Evidence in the Case Overview Documents. Ask students to identify the ten most signifi cant events.

➤ Instruct students to read the brief introductions in the remaining fi ve overview documents to learn about the conditions leading up to the incident.

STEP 2: LEARN ABOUT THE CONFLICT

Before you look at historical documents, it will help to learn more of the background to this event. In Evidence in the Case there is a list of six “Overview documents” prepared by creators of this website; these documents explain the context for this incident. Begin by looking at the Timeline and identifying the ten most signifi cant events. Next, read the brief introductions presented in the other fi ve overview documents to learn about the conditions leading up to the incident.

EVIDENCE IN THE CASE

Overview documentsTimelineContextSmallpox CultureRoad Building CultureTsilhqot’in CultureFur Trade Culture

MysteryQuest 7 Support Materials 1 (Activity Sheet)

Comparing War, Massacre, and Terrorism

War Massacre Terrorism

may be unjust or justifiable is unjust, involves the killing of innocent people

involves violence against people who are in some way associated with the

problem

longer in duration could be a one-time event typically involves more than one event

occurs between political entities

can be carried out by individuals or small groups

can be carried out by small or large groups

attacks happen on both sides

one-sided hostilities one-sided hostilities

usually as a defence of the key interests of the group

may be impulsive, motivated by revenge or the need to

cover up a crime

usually the result of frustration over ongoing

actions by a powerful force

Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History�MysteryQuest 7 – War, Massacre, or Terrorism?

MysteryQuest 7 Home Website – We Do Not Know His Name: Klatsassin and the Chilcotin War


Examine historical documents

➤ Using Step 3: Examine historical documents as a guide, explain to students that they are going to examine selected historical documents and think about the justifi cation for using the term war, mas-sacre, or terrorism to describe the incident.

➤ Direct students to the six sources from the list of Primary Documents found in Evidence in the Case.

➤ Duplicate and distribute copies of Determining the Kind of Incident to students. Explain that they will need a copy of this chart for each historical document.

Develop criteria for a fair-minded argument

➤ As a class, discuss fi ndings from the documents. Ask students whether the opinions expressed in the documents seemed fair-minded - why or why not? Brainstorm with students criteria for judging a fair-minded argument. From a list of seven or eight criteria, select three or four that include such things as clearly stated position, neutral (not “loaded”) language, supporting evidence, and reference to defi nitions of war, massacre, and terrorism.

Prepare your fi nding

➤ Using Step 4: Prepare your fi nding as a guide, instruct students to write a 250-word explanation that clearly states whether they believe the incident was a war, a massacre, or terrorism. Remind students to follow the criteria for a fair-minded argument.

STEP 3: EXAMINE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

You are now ready to examine selected historical documents and think about the justifi cation for using the term war, massacre, or terrorism to describe the incident. Locate the six sources from the list of “Primary documents” found in Evidence in the Case.

For each historical document, use a copy of Determining the Kind of Incident to record the following:• statements that provide clues as to the underlying nature of the incident;• the inference you draw from each piece of evidence about the kind of

incident (war, massacre, or terrorism);• and why you think each piece of evidence supports the term you suggest.

For example, you might record that one document claims that the Native people had a lawless spirit induced by the drinking of whisky. This implies that the incident might appropriately be seen as a massacre since the statement suggests there was no clear purpose for the killings. Refer to the chart Comparing War, Massacre, and Terrorism to remind you of the features that distinguish each kind of incident.

EVIDENCE IN THE CASE

Primary documentsNewspaper articles

“An Indian War Impending”, The British Colonist, August 30, 1862“The Bute Inlet Massacre and Its Causes”, The Victoria Colonist, June 13, 1864“Waddington and Bute Inlet”, The British Columbian, June 18, 1864

Colonial correspondenceFrederick Seymour, “Letter to Newcastle, No. 7” – May 20, 1864

TestimonyTestimony of Ach-pic-er-mous, May 31, 1865

Oral History/InterviewHenry Solomon, The Escape of Chedekki [Sumayu], Nemiah: The Unconquered Country, 1992

MysteryQuest 7 Support Materials 2 (Activity Sheet)

Determining the Kind of Incident

Name of document

Statement from the document

Inference Explanation

This suggests the incident is� war� massacre� terrorism









STEP 4: PREPARE YOUR FINDING

Armed with the evidence you have found to support each description of the incident, write a 250-word explanation that clearly states whether you believe it was war, massacre, or terrorism. Provide evidence from the documents to support your conclusion, making frequent reference to the meaning of these terms.


Evaluation

➤ Use the rubric Assessing Inferences Drawn from Evidence to evalu-ate student completion of charts. Use the rubric Assessing Historical Conclusions to assess students’ 250-word explanation of the event.

Extension

➤ Invite students to work individually or as a class to pursue the suggested activities listed in Exten-sion.

EXTENSION

The legacy todayRead a selection of the documents in The Chilcotin War Today and identify the issues that keep the incident alive for the Chilcotin peoples.

Causes of the confl ictWhat were the underlying reasons for this confl ict? Did smallpox cause it? Or was it the building of a road through the Chilcotin territory? Or were the seeds already sown in the years of the fur trade? Read the following overview documents written by the creators of the website and summarize the arguments supporting each suggested cause of the confl ict. Create a pie chart indicating the percentage of infl uence each of these causes had in the killing of the men on the road crew. You may want to consult Creating a Pie Chart for instructions on how to complete a pie chart.

ContextSmallpox CultureRoad Building CultureTsilhqot’in CultureFur Trade Culture

Comparing kinds of evidenceSome people suggest that “oral history” is not as reliable as “written documents” when it comes to providing evidence of the past. Look at the following primary documents — one that describes itself as “oral history” and others that are “written historical documents.” What are the similarities and differences between them? What are their strengths and weaknesses as “evidence” about the Chilcotin War?

Oral History/Interview: Henry Solomon, The Escape of Chedekki [Sumayu], Nemiah: The Unconquered Country, 1992

Colonial Dispatches: Frederick Seymour, “Letter to Newcastle, No. 7” – May 20, 1864

MysteryQuest 7 Evaluation Materials 1 (Rubric)

Assessing Inferences Drawn from Evidence

Outstanding Very good Competent Satisfactory In-progress

Identifiesrelevant and importantevidence

Identifies themost important

and relevantstatements in

the documents.

Identifies therequired

number of relevant

statements,including most

of the important ones

in the documents.

Identifies somerelevant

statements in the documents,

but the important ones

are omitted.

Identifies somerelevant

statements in the documents,but none of theimportant onesare included.

Identifies no relevant

statements in the

documents.

Drawsplausibleinferences

Draws highly plausible

inferences about the implications

of the statements;

providesconvincing

reasons for theinferences.

Draws plausibleinferencesabout the

implications of the statements;provides goodreasons for the

inferences.

Draws generallyplausible

inferencesabout the

implications of the statements;

providesreasons forsome of theinferences.

Draws someplausible

inferencesabout the

implications of the statements;provides little

justification forthe inferences.

Drawsgenerally

implausibleinferencesabout the

implicationsof the

statements;provides very

littlejustification

for theinferences.



MysteryQuest 7 Evaluation Materials 2 (Rubric)

Assessing Historical Conclusions

Outstanding Very good Competent Satisfactory In-progress

Clearlyexplains the importantevidence

Identifies andvery clearlyexplains the

most importantevidence for the

conclusion.

Identifies andclearly explains

most of theimportant

evidence forthe conclusion.

Identifies somerelevant and important

evidence for theconclusion;

explanations aregenerally quite

clear.

Identifies verylittle relevant

evidence for theconclusion;

explanations areonly

occasionallyclear.

Identifies no relevant

evidence forthe

conclusion;none of theexplanations

are clear.

Offersplausible

conclusion

The conclusionis highly

plausible and highly justifiable

in light of theevidenceprovided.

The conclusionis clearly

plausible and justifiable in light of theevidenceprovided.

The conclusionis plausible and

adequatelyjustifiable in light of theevidenceprovided.

The conclusionis plausible but

barely justifiablegiven theevidenceprovided.

Theconclusion is implausible

and notjustifiablegiven theevidenceprovided.

